Melanie Phillips’ talk from February is how journalism has not only discarded objectivity but become its enemy, and how the MSM and in particular the BBC and the Guardian have cordoned off the idea that their Progressive and cultural Marxism are question - proof and unassailable and therefore are rocks of truth. Environmentalism, cultural diversity, the “derangement” of Donald Trump, the evil of guns, and man himself, are all coded by Progressive yard sticks of truth or falseness. Melanie Phillips, a British journalist, speaks from experience in the journalistic trenches.
Since axiomatic concepts refer to facts of reality and are not a matter of “faith” or of man’s arbitrary choice, there is observing the fact that an axiomatic concept cannot be escaped, that it is implicit in all a way to ascertain whether a given concept is axiomatic or not: one ascertains it by knowledge, that it has to be accepted and used even in the process of any attempt to deny it.
For instance, when modern philosophers declare that axioms are a matter of arbitrary choice, and proceed to choose complex, derivative concepts as the alleged axioms of their alleged reasoning, one can observe that their statements imply and depend on “existence,” “consciousness,” “identity,” which they profess to negate, but which are smuggled into their arguments in the form of unacknowledged, “stolen” concepts. (pp. 56-57)
“What’s true for me, is different from your truth. What’s true for you, isn’t necessarily true for me.” If truth is arbitrary, then an automobile is the same as the pumpkin carriage from Cinderella. The basic and logical conclusion is that no truth exists for either party. The nonexistence of reality is “axiomatic.”
“Truth” is based on reality. So, which is “true: Your reality, or mine? Are there two realities? Is there an unlimited “diversity” of realities? Are they all “real”? But reality can’t be “real,” say the moderns and the journalists, since our multitude of realities are subjective.
Even the term “true” is a stolen concept, which means that the idea being denied is used to help negate it, that is, it is used to invalidate it. Truth means, according to Merriam-Webster:
a (1) : being in accordance with the actual state of affairs
· true description
(2) : conformable to an essential reality
· (3) : dreams come true
c : being that which is the case rather than what is manifest or assumed
· (1) the true dimension of the problem
(2) fully realized or fulfilled
So reality, and everything in it, according to modern academia and journalists, has less substance than a dandelion puff. It’s all in your mind. A “dream.” Or, “transcendental,” evendentiary facts cannot be employed because they are fictitious, or without substance, beyond human cognition, which is deceptive. Thus said Immanuel Kant. Immanuel Kant, preceded by Plato, is the father of today’s mare’s nest of irrationality and all the fake news you can put on your plate. When you attempt to read what Kant said about how men know (or don’t know), you’ll encounter a sailor’s knot of rationalizations more complex than the knot needed to tie up the QE2 to a dock. Kant’s mental gymnastics have had more influence than is realized. Phillips reiterates the current “consensus” that there is no objective truth in the MSM. That a lie has as a better anchor in reality than a truth. That is the insoluble belief of the enemies of objectivity. That an asserted “lie\truth” is beyond challenge. Some things are the preferred “truth” than the fact-based truth. Israel is evil, prima facie. So is Donald Trump. And climate change denial. And deniers. And all the other hobgoblins of the left.
In her talk, Phillips describes two Guardian stories that rejected reality but whose authors were blind to the truth or indifferent to it, and preferred the fiction, even though it had been shown that the stories were fiction or lies. (minute 43.07, 33.48, 39.56, 43.1) The managers of the newspaper releasing the stories will say that it doesn’t matter if the children are really dead or alive, or that they were just dolls smeared with ketchup, because what mattered was the “broader truth.” Phillips said that they don’t care about the truth. In another story, a top reporter described in detail Muslim women in a truck, supposedly prisoners of the Serbs; it was revealed that the reporter never saw the incident and had just made up the story.
A Gaza n child was “killed” by Israeli bullets, but the film of the event showed the child, slumped on the ground, peeking out between his fingers. He was not dead. The “death” was staged by HAMAS. In the act of stealing a concept, the BBC and the Guardian, and in general the MSM, promote a “broader truth.” But if they were consistent in their fallacy, they would concede that their preferred “truth” is equally imaginary – or subjective – and not based on fact, broad or not.
But then logic, it is claimed, is a Western tool and the sibling, say the reality deniers, of Western colonialism, racism, and oppression, etc.; along with objectivity, logic is derogated and demoted as a means of human cognition. To resort to logic, to prove the insanity of modern journalism, is to reveal to the modernists one’s inherent and biased stupidity. Cognitive “harmony” does not exist between reader s and viewers, and modern journalism.
Phillips, in her talk, passionately and without hesitation, reveals just how corrupt modern journalism is today and explains how maniacally the MSM is devoted to its fact-barren emotionalism, and how deeply grounded in non-reality to “profession” is.
This is actually Doc Brown’s DeLorean
How do you know it isn’t?
What does “actually” really mean?
To emphasize this issue, here are snippets of a story in the Federalist, from June 14th, from Indiana, about an orchestra teacher who was forced to resign because he would not submit to his school’s policy of pretending that A is not A:
Local public officials have so far refused to publicly discuss the policies they put into place at the beginning of 2018 that John Kluge says led to his resignation in May. Brownsburg Community School Corporation, the district that employed Kluge, put out a transgender policy document in January instructing staff to call students by their chosen names and pronouns once they are so designated on school records. Kluge opted instead to address students by their last names to avoid either referring to his apparently several transgender students with pronouns and names of the opposite sex, or offending them by not doing as they wished despite its contradiction of reality….
“Mr. Kluge’s religious beliefs have absolutely no place in a public high school. I think what he believes is morally just conflicts with what not only I believe, [but] what my parents believe, what my psychiatrist, therapist and doctor believe and the school board believe are morally just,” said student Aidyn Sucec. Kluge’s beliefs are not merely moral, but also scientific. Scientifically, there are only two sexes. “Gender” is a linguistic term for a non-physical concept.
Whether or not Kluge’s beliefs are religious in nature, the student’s statement is an example of the “trickle down” (or perhaps the avalanche) effect into the culture of cultural Marxism and the disintegration of academia. So is the article author’s journalistic aside that gender is a “non-physical” concept. One’s sex is governed by the physical facts of one’s biological make-up – not by linguistics – not by how one feels about one’s sex, or by a “non-physical” concept , that is, by one’s “feeling.” But, in today’s “anything goes” culture, the student’s statement is more important than Kluge’s beliefs; the student’s assertions or beliefs have a place in high schools, not the teacher’s. Emotions are treated as tools of cognition. The field of linguistic studies is in as chaotic a state as is epistemology.
“Broader truths” take precedence over reality.